The GrokLaw article references Google's statement on OOXML, which I endorse. If there are aspects of ODF which Microsoft would like to see improved, then let's work together to improve ODF. This new proposed standard seems unnecessary and burdensome.

The GrokLaw article references Google's statement on OOXML, which I endorse. If there are aspects of ODF which Microsoft would like to see improved, then let's work together to improve ODF. This new proposed standard seems unnecessary and burdensome.

+

+

----

+

'''John Walicki - IBM Open Client Architect'''

+

+

IBM is a strong supporter of open standards because they allow for fair competition among market players based on the creation and the implementation of the standards and do not allow one party to control the standard and therefore the marketplace. The ODF standard can be implemented and used by anyone on any platform, at any time, and no license or fee is required. This provides consumers with complete control and ownership of their documents, forever. ODF is truly open with contributions from dozens of companies. Changes to ODF will likewise be determined by the community. ODF provides a format that will be available to all without any specific company or companies controlling its fate or future.

+

+

We are very concerned about many aspects of the ooXML specification that is currently under ballot in ISO/IEC JTC1 including many technical issues concerning the quality of the specification.

+

+

* It is unclear whether all vendors will be able to implement a fully compliant version of the ooXML specification. The specification references other specifications which are not publicly available and for which the Intellectual Property Rights are unknown.

+

* The ooXML specification conflicts with many other International Standards (Language Codes, Paper Sizes, Colour codes, etc.) by implementing its own specific codes.

* The ooXML specifications rely on Windows specific capabilities. Document exchange with other operating systems is not guaranteed. An International Standard should be technology neutral.

=== References ===

=== References ===

Revision as of 20:17, 27 August 2007

Desktop Architects Speak Out on OOXML

Quotes

John Cherry - Linux Foundation; Global Initiative Manager

The Linux Foundation supports the adoption of open standards
as a catylist for innovation and to define common frameworks for new
development. With ODF (Open Document Format) as an existing ISO document standard,
we do not consider it beneficial to introduce an alternative document standard.
Since both ODF and OOXML are both designed as formats for editable
documents, computer users would greatly benefit from multiple implementations
of a single standard rather than suffer the confusion and conversions
involved with multiple standards.

If you could argue that multiple standards to address a common problem
is the right way to go (which I don't believe to be true), then you would
have to look at the technical merits of both standards and eventually it
would come down to the survival of the fittest. With the vote among the
various ISO committees regarding OOXML coming on September 2, we feel
that the review process for this 6546 page standard document has been
insufficient and that there are significant technical issues that must
be addressed. These include the continued use of binary code tied to
platform specific features, propagating bugs in MS-Office into the
standard, proprietary units, references to proprietary/confidential
tags, unclear IP and patent rights, and more (see the reference from
asianlinux.org below).

Dan Kegel - WINE architect

One of my concerns is that Microsoft reserves the right to sue you
if you implement all of OOXML. The Microsoft "Open Specification Promise"
and the earlier "Covenant Not To Sue" only cover the *required* portions of
the standard, not the optional sections, e.g. the ones that handle
backwards compatibility.
Thus Microsoft seems to be saying that any OOXML file
that was produced by loading a Word 2003 file and saving it as OOXML
(and that's going to be the most common case for some time)
cannot be legally read by a competing implementation without
licensing Microsoft's patents.

Klaus Knopper - creator of Knoppix and Gnoppix

The proposed standard must be implementable by everyone. Insufficient or vendor-specific documentation cannot be implemented by anyone in full.

The proposed standard must be architecture- and operating-system independent.

The proposed standard must not be obfuscated.

All components and interfaces must be openly disclosed and documented in full, and not given as a "container" for proprietary content.

The proposed standard must not contain patented/proprietary components.

Implementing the standard must be royalty-free.

Scott Preece - Desktop Architect

I understand that the proposed standard is really a surrogate for Microsoft's
claim to legitimacy in markets where support for open standards and
interoperability are critical.

However, it's also true that (a) in many problem spaces there are multiple
standards and (b) the normal role of the standards process is to formalize
existing practice rather than to make policy or invent "better" practices. I
once chaired a POSIX working group that was trying to forge a single standard
to unify practice where there were two existing practices; ultimately the
effort failed and the two practices were individually standardized. And the
world didn't end.

David "Lefty" Schlesinger - Chair, Linux Foundation Mobile Working Group

There are serious issues with OOXML being adopted as a standard, as the references show.

Interoperability is, in fact, pretty limited

The legal status of future versions is murky

The proposed standard is ginormous (that's an official word now, according to Merriam-Webster), and hasn't had a reasonable review period (and might, at over 6,000 pages, be too large to reasonably review, especially since it's pretty much duplicative of ODF)

The GrokLaw article references Google's statement on OOXML, which I endorse. If there are aspects of ODF which Microsoft would like to see improved, then let's work together to improve ODF. This new proposed standard seems unnecessary and burdensome.

John Walicki - IBM Open Client Architect

IBM is a strong supporter of open standards because they allow for fair competition among market players based on the creation and the implementation of the standards and do not allow one party to control the standard and therefore the marketplace. The ODF standard can be implemented and used by anyone on any platform, at any time, and no license or fee is required. This provides consumers with complete control and ownership of their documents, forever. ODF is truly open with contributions from dozens of companies. Changes to ODF will likewise be determined by the community. ODF provides a format that will be available to all without any specific company or companies controlling its fate or future.

We are very concerned about many aspects of the ooXML specification that is currently under ballot in ISO/IEC JTC1 including many technical issues concerning the quality of the specification.

It is unclear whether all vendors will be able to implement a fully compliant version of the ooXML specification. The specification references other specifications which are not publicly available and for which the Intellectual Property Rights are unknown.

The ooXML specification conflicts with many other International Standards (Language Codes, Paper Sizes, Colour codes, etc.) by implementing its own specific codes.